26 December 2016

Citizens of the UK got a master class demonstrating how a potential referendum can be abused and become a political football. A 'promise' to hold a referendum about the country's future relationship with the EU was not worth the paper it is written on.At present any referendum that is generously conceded by the governing class it is not really done in the full spirit of giving power to the people. That would only be the case if a referendum would be a permanent part of the political process or could be demanded to be held whenever a qualified number of citizens demand one.Some may criticise that it is unfair that a small majority makes such a far-reaching decision which could bind the other half of the citizens to a policy their do not agree with.This is a valid point and any referendum that has far-reaching implications, in particular about a constitutional matter, should require a more substantial quorum to make it binding.This point conceded one would have to contend with the objection that all the decisions that led the UK to become deeper and deeper integrated into the EU should in turn also have been subjected to a referendum with an equally high quorum hurdle.As matters stand, the citizens had hardly any say. Even the original referendum about joining the then EEC was based on promises that were never kept. In any case a referendum is merely being used under duress or used as just another trick to push through policies that the 'Elites' want to pursue can be abused. This is the usual argument against Direct Democracy and while it has the ring of truth to it is is based on a wrong form of referendum.If politicians honestly want to return power to the citizens (or as they always claim: 'Listen to the People') they would not cling to their power and support Direct Democracy and introduce it as binding requirement when any significant political decision is made.

Election Campaign promises forgotten, endless criticism in the Media disregarded - all too often the citizens feel helpless in face of poorly executed or plain wrong political decisions.

The easy solution is obvious, but very uncomfortable for the 'Elites' that are in control of Government and the Civil Servants, Bureaucracies and Quangos that often benefit from these policies.

A headline in today's Daily Telegraph illustrates this: "Foreign aid contractors that do not deliver value for money to be named and shamed under new plans"

A few questions come to mind immediately: Who decides what is 'value for money', will the naming scheme ever be implemented? by whom? and will it have any positive effect?

But the more relevant question really is: who appoints these contractors? who decides on what terms they are engaged and who supervises them?

There is zero democratic control in all this - the citizens have no opportunity to get involved.
And the REALLY important question raised by this headline is the following: Why should the citizens be forced to make donations to foreign entitites, many of them in the grip of corrupt cliques?

There is no hindrance for private citizens to donate whatever amount of money they wish to give to Mr. Mugabe or to India (which seems to be able to afford its own space programme).
The state should only do what the initiative of private citizens cannot achieve.

In addition, all government policies and their implementation, in particular the allocation of public funds, should be subject to the will of the citizens.

27 October 2016

All very well that the comedy with Wallonia trying to bloc the Trade Deal between the EU and Canada has been ended. But let's not forget that the whole procedure of approval has basically been done behind the backs of the citizens.

11 August 2016

Like them or not, Think Tanks have sprouted all over the world and they have preferential access to policy makers in most states. Often they are actually sponsored by taxpayer-funded political parties as is the case in Germany and Austria. But making all legislation subject to the ultimate say-so of the electorate would go a long way to dilute the influence of unelected Think Tanks.

Headline reads:Boundary Change must not hit the gender ratio in House of Commons.
Now that tells you that the political class is not really interested in solving major issues confronting the citizens. Instead an important change in the composition of constituencies is hijacked by a discussion about an aspect that appeals mostly to political correctness without solving problems such as national security, health care, education and house building - all subjects of real concern to the electorate.

5 August 2016

It is about time that the dominating Internet Portals such as Facebook and Google are brought under democratic control. When providers have a dominant market share the Competition and Monopolies regulators should not be fobbed off with spurious arguments such as 'we must not interfere with new technologies, ie stand in the way of progress etc'. What applied to Rockefeller's Standard Oil in the early 1900s must apply to the Internet Barons today. When the providers start tinkering with the flow of news and information alarm bells should start ringing in the sleepy offices of the regulators and legislative assemblies. Naturally, the USA will not be too keen as most providers are based there but a confrontation with the lobby-infested corridors of power in Washington can not longer be avoided.

As another (expensive) Sportsfest starts in Rio de Janeiro the question of who benefits from this taxpayer funded largesse comes to the fore again. Taxpayers may think that their money is well spent but the Olympic 'Movement' (if you can call it that as it is dominated by a clique of insiders beyond democratic control, i.e. there is no influence from the wider public or at least those citizens involved in sports as amateurs or professionals) is resisting all efforts to be fully responsible for money spent to host the event.Rio 2016: Economists question wisdom of hosting OlympicsOpinion: Olympic denial: The benefits to hosting the Games are just hype

2 July 2016

In an outburst that borders on what you would normally only expect from an imbecile - and not the leader of a major political party - Sigmar Gabriel 'demanded' that young Brits should be offered German citizenship. No clearer statement could be made to demonstrate that the pampered party hacks in many western (pseudo) democracies have very little time for democratic conventions. Apart from the absurdity of this 'demand' one has to wonder if young Swiss are also offered this (dubious) 'opportunity'.

1 July 2016

Democracy no longer exists in the West says Paul Craig Roberts. Maybe an extreme view - esp compared to those states that can really be said to be run in an autocratic fashion. But how much say do the citizens of States in the West really have?

24 June 2016

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

18 May 2016

Time and again a government has either lost its way or lost the confidence of the electorate. While sometimes a no-confidence vote in parliament can end the agony and prevent a zombie government from sitting out its term in office a more decisive way to take it out of its misery is called for. The citizens should be able to start a recall procedure if a qualified number of citizens support such a move. In a Direct Democracy such a crisis would be much less likely as citizens would have the ultimate say on all legislation. This would prevent that any government could deviate too far from the wishes of the majority.

When the likes of Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, Bono and Bob Geldof can get prominent media exposure and access to political shakers and movers it is only due to the fact that democratic practice is dysfunctional. Neither they nor our politicians really do have a democratic mandate for the policies they support. Being detached from the electorate they form a closed society of cronies that mutually support each other. Politicians gain from being associated with supposedly glamorous 'artists' that the media fawn over while the 'celebrities' can boost their brand value. Has-beens such as Bill Clinton or Tony Blair later on effortlessly move from one side to the other and cash in on their prominence.

15 May 2016

From the Viewpoint of a traditional Top-Down political Operator she may well have a point. Anytime the citizens have a direct say in political decisions there is a 'risk' that the manipulations of party machines will be stopped dead in their tracks.

In Austria the Chancellor is replaced at the drop of a hat. Party hacks decide he is no longer useful to keep them in power and he must go. In comes a political novice, never stood in an election, has zero mandate to rule as helpless citizens watch in disbelief.
In Italy a young politician close to the Prime Minister is allowed to manipulate the decades-old constitution. Main purpose to provide a safe and comfortable life for the ruling parties. At least there will have to be a referendum on the changes - but is it not all-too-easy to get the desired result? Is the required Quorum demanding enough (two thirds in favour, with at least 50 percent of those eligible to vote turning up? regional preferences catered for?)

11 April 2016

"The perception of a system run and managed by a political establishment that serves the rich and connected and fails to hold these elites accountable for the damage they cause to the rest of society" (Mohamed El-Erian, Bloomberg)We could not have said it better! While Direct Democracy would not be the perfect solution to this problem it would go a long way towards a more equitable economic and political system.

27 March 2016

More important - it does not really matter how many parties compete for your vote, and under what electoral system.The most important change to align politics with the wishes of the Citizens is the introduction of Direct Democracy on all levels of Government.

Just these days the Burghers of Zurich, Switzerland, will launch a referendum against the imposition of higher parking charges in their town. One may agree or not, but they do not have to helplessly accept the diktat from above.

1 January 2016

Changes to the Constitution must not be allowed to dictated by the political Establishment. There needs to be a mandatory consultation of the Electorate. At the same time only a qualified majority - including one supported by a qualified majority of regions - must be a binding requirement. Manipulations such as this one would not be possible.